Voting and Corruption
Can the system be fixed?
What is the nature of voting like?
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/08/gary-d-barnett/how-does-one-wake-up/
Here are a few characteristics of voting that render the practice problematic at best.
While the subject is nearly moot and over-analyzed, it might still serve well for encouraging a discussion here.
Here are some well-known problems with voting:
1. Voting is limited to well-financed candidates.
2. Voting machines can affect the outcome.
3. As long as have-nots are allowed to vote, they are likely to vote for freebies. If only those, who contribute were allowed to vote, the social safety net would probably end.
4. It's hard to recall an occasion when campaign promises were kept.
5. Voting creates the illusion that people can elect the next person who will screw them over.
6. Voting opens up the option of blaming voters for policy failures, although policies usually have nothing to do with campaign promises.
7. Voting justifies the actions of the elected "representative" by pretending that the actions represent the majority of the electorate's will.
Can the system be fixed at all? How could it be freed from corruption?
Here are my two pennies:
Terms limits, while a good idea, would not end corruption, because the political system operates as a well-oiled machine of cartels and monopolies in which both parties participate.
Lobbying is often blamed for the corruption that is inevitable in all parliamentary systems, while to me, it seems like a message board that ensures the revolving door between corporate, supervisory, and political offices is alive and well.
Only small local governments can stay relatively free from corruption.
Making the legislators PERSONALLY responsible might also work, although once lawyers step into the picture, all may be lost.
One thing is certain: answers to the question if “democacy” can be fixed seem inconclusive.
What do you think?
There was a series a couple of years ago, I think it was called "The Swamp"?, describing how legislative agendas get pushed in both US parties. It's all run by committees within the party, and only the top tier committees ever get the backing of the party. And what determines if you get on a top tier committee? Why, how much money you've contributed to the party, of course.
Given this is how the system actually works, it's ludicrous for the average person to think they are "represented" in any real fashion. Combine this with the fact that by the time any bill ever reaches the floor its been so watered down with concessions to various lobbies and opposition and unrelated backroom deals, and the fact that they hammer these things through, typically, when key people are not present to vote against it or have not had time to read the entire bill...
People have this belief that "everything will be fixed if we just vote the right person in". But if the game is rigged, does changing the players really matter?